Re: [Ltru] Language tags and (localization) processes (Re: draft-davis-t-langtag-ext)

Mark Davis ☕ <> Wed, 13 July 2011 14:32 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8BED321F893C for <>; Wed, 13 Jul 2011 07:32:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.269
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.269 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.077, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_FONT_FACE_BAD=0.884, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_34=0.6, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sCvi0Msbmtqn for <>; Wed, 13 Jul 2011 07:32:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B234321F889F for <>; Wed, 13 Jul 2011 07:32:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by ywp31 with SMTP id 31so2103561ywp.31 for <>; Wed, 13 Jul 2011 07:32:42 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=ICe3yRooK+bva8LVprKEjLw42ycVQ4rI2Rc1WCppqZQ=; b=omtZd12nMxHoh3PGu8nZZ4Va/pJnQWETUfU5y04LhFgwYlk3+9NbpKmPn3RIcu9n3M SHASWadSQIMPNsg6kc/b6nSNEFzc331n4KF3rvL+y01TgdwxD0ZgdtiIEDh7llrQ+2s/ 7Z9qTamqpJigzxWUYHJPWi72km+/f4Hj3xrk4=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with SMTP id p20mr1284209yba.79.1310567562157; Wed, 13 Jul 2011 07:32:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with HTTP; Wed, 13 Jul 2011 07:32:42 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <>
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2011 07:32:42 -0700
X-Google-Sender-Auth: HOBk9WefB6AkwgSdbhp2DGTJ6FE
Message-ID: <>
From: =?UTF-8?B?TWFyayBEYXZpcyDimJU=?= <>
To: Felix Sasaki <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=000e0cd482b8ff1ea304a7f44931
Subject: Re: [Ltru] Language tags and (localization) processes (Re: draft-davis-t-langtag-ext)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2011 14:32:47 -0000

Sorry, I missed this earlier. Will respond.

*— Il meglio è l’inimico del bene —*

On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 00:23, Felix Sasaki <>wrote;wrote:

> The current draft states
> "Language tags, as defined by [BCP47<>]7>],
> are useful for identifying the
>    language of content.  There are mechanisms for specifying variant
>    subtags for special purposes.  However, these variants are
>    insufficient for specifying text transformations, including content
> that has been transliterated, transcribed, or translated."
> I am requesting a clarification from the editors, that includes a liaison
> with the Unicode ULI TC , and a clarification in
> the draft.
> Language tags so far have described *states*: an object is in a language, a
> script etc. The proposed extension extends languages to describe the outcome
> of a *process*: objects have been transformed, with a source object as the
> basis for this process. According to the paragraph above, this
> transformation includes also translation.
> So far formats like TBX, XLIFF or others have been used for aligning source
> and target contents. These formats also use language tags, via xml:lang.
> However, the transformation, i.e. the process information, is not expressed
> via the language tag, but via XML structures (pairs of source and target
> elements). The language tags are purely for identifying the state of an
> object.
> To avoid confusion for users of the above and other, process related
> formats about where to put language identification information and where to
> put process related information, I am asking you to
> 1) Liaise with the ULI TC about the issue described above and see what
> issues they see here
> 2) Document the outcome of this liaison on this list and in the draft
> There is no need to have long explanations in the draft, but guidance about
> the topic will be very helpful to avoid confusion.
> As a side note, formats like TBX, XLIFF and others reduce the usage of a
> language tag for good reasons: information related to processes like
> translation can be very complex, e.g. expressing translation state, cycle,
> quality. So I have the general concern that language tags might be
> overloaded with key value pairs in areas that would require more complex
> information and that potentially overlap with formats that provide that
> information. Nevertheless I won't object against moving this extension
> forward, if the concerns are explained properly in the draft.
> Felix
> 2011/7/12 Mark Davis ☕ <>
>> We've posted a new version of
>> Diffs are here:
>> The changes are:
>> * Made it clear that application to the case of speech was included, added
>> Peter C's example.
>> * Fixed references, adding authors, removing unneeded reference.
>> * Changed ABNF. Mostly just the table form, but also defined alphanum.
>> * Made it clear that the CLDR committee must post proposals publicly.
>> * Added more information on the XML structure, including the description
>> attribute. (Note that the CLDR committee had decided to add the description
>> attribute before this process began.)
>> * Added fixes for typos noted by CEW.
>> Please let us know of further feedback.
>> Note to Doug: The CLDR committee had agreed to move the descriptions into
>> the bcp47 files, such as
>> Yoshito
>> has the action to do that, and was able to accelerate it. So please take a
>> look if you have the time.
>> Mark
>> _______________________________________________
>> Ltru mailing list